Posted on 06/21/2006 3:47:40 PM PDT by neverdem
The day after Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger crashed his motorcycle, while he was still recovering from surgery to repair his fractured face, The Cincinnati Post scolded the Ohio native for not wearing a helmet. "Riders should wear helmets," the paper proclaimed, "and if they're not going to, perhaps the government should step in and make them."
The Post pined for the days when "all states required helmets," bemoaning the fact that 30 states now let adult motorcyclists decide for themselves what, if anything, to wear on their heads. The laws were changed, the editorial explained, because of "pressure from those who advocate 'freedom.'"
Notice the scare quotes. According to The Cincinnati Post, the freedom to take a risk is not really freedom at all; you are truly free only when you make the right choices--those that minimize the chance of injury. It's a depressingly common attitude nowadays, when health promotion is routinely accepted as a justification for meddling in what used to be considered our private lives.
By the standards of "public health," which seeks above all else to minimize morbidity and mortality, Roethlisberger should not have been riding a motorcycle at all. Given the nature of his injuries, it's doubtful a helmet would have prevented them, unless it was a full-face model. But it's certain Roethlisberger would not have been in a motorcycle crash if he had never ridden a motorcycle.
If injury prevention were Roethlisberger's overriding goal, of course, he probably would not have chosen a career in professional football. "I wish all our players liked board games or low-risk hobbies," Cleveland Browns General Manager Phil Savage said after Roethlisberger's accident. "Unfortunately, one of the things that makes these professional athletes is they have an edge that makes them want to seek more."
The same could be said of motorcyclists generally, especially the ones who have fiercely resisted laws forcing helmets on their heads. "If you've never ridden a motorcycle," says Jeff Hennie of the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, "there's no way to describe the feeling of freedom. It's got to be the next best thing to being able to fly. When you start putting restrictions on that freedom, people take it personally."
There's that word again. The editors of The Cincinnati Post are not the only ones who are puzzled by the concept. At a recent conference sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg—who brags about tracking New Yorkers' blood sugar levels and driving down cigarette consumption with high taxes and a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants--called for "an aggressive, comprehensive public health strategy" aimed at "deadly menaces [that] result from our choices," including "tobacco addiction, unhealthy nutrition, and excessively sedentary lifestyles."
Regarding government efforts to influence what we eat and how much exercise we get, Bloomberg acknowledged that "some people may call that too intrusive." He immediately dismissed this concern by relabeling it: "I call it dynamic and effective public health." You say tomato...
The problem is that Bloomberg's idea of public health, like the CDC's, does not distinguish between deadly diseases people catch and risky things they choose to do. In his speech he equated smoking, overeating, and failing to wear a seat belt with polio, cholera, and tuberculosis, wishing away freedom by pretending it doesn't exist.
"We rely on the forceful application of law—democratically debated and approved—as the principal instrument of public health policy," Bloomberg said. So as long as your risky hobby or habit meets with the majority's approval, there's no need to worry, unless you think politicians sometimes are driven by their own ideological agendas.
Bloomberg wants us to know he's not one of those fanatics. "Clearly," he said, "there are many matters of personal behavior and personal taste that we have no business regulating." Oddly, he did not name a single one.
© Copyright 2006 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. Sullum's weekly column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. If you'd like to see it in your local newspaper, please e-mail or call the editorial page editor today.
health nazi - nanny state ping
I'm surprised his NFL contract didn't stipulate that he not engage in dangerous off-the-field activities, such as riding motorcycles without appropriate protective equipment.
Yes, you are free not to wear a helmut, but when you are riding on a public road, you are subject to all sorts of restrictions. Furthermore, you are less likely to die if you wear one. If you care nothing aboiut yourself, think of the motorist and what a pickle he/she faces if he/she kills you. You are dead and strangers have to pick up the mess.
So was I.
Its up to each NFL team to insert that kind of language in there.
You'd be surprised at how restrictive baseball contracts are, alot of players are banned from playing even recreational basketball, Don Mattinly's contract, one of the few I have ever seen, pretty much banned everything you could possibly name, and listed a whole boatload of sports he was not allowed to play at anytime without permission.
The bargaining agreements allow teams alot of leeway in what restrictions they want to place on players.
NFL teams, are allowed to prohibit motorcycle use during the regular season unless the contract states otherwise.
The case for banning motorcycles is much stronger than the case for required helmets.
But they don't dare.
Yet.
The case for banning motorcycles is much stronger than the case for required helmets.
But they don't dare.
Yet.
I can't tell you how many teachers I had in school who used to say this, then get enraged when I said "fine, and we are free to vote for people who won't step in".
If God wanted motorcyclists to wear helmets, he would have given them brains. Wait, I guess the smart ones do wear helmets.
My trauma ER doc wife sees quite a few of the others who make wonderful organ donors. Young, strong bodies, with jello where their brain used to be. The "good" thing is that being so young, their brain stem keeps running their body for some time, keeping the organs in great shape. Too bad though that the eyes are so often unusable.
Wait until Big Ben straps on a helmet and takes some whacks - he'll be singing the 'owwie, my face hurts' blues"!
As Ron White put it:
I believe I read in the AJC today that old Ben had decided he'd be wearing a helmet if he ever got on another motorcycle.
Nothing new here. I see other idiots riding with short pants, sneakers, t-shirts etc. They may not really be idiots, but have yet to feel what it's like to lay a street bike down. A few hours in the ER getting gravels, bottle caps, glass fragments, beggar's lice, dried dog feces and used tobacco cuds dug from the top half inch or so of your hide followed by a few weeks of fighting the inevitable infection(s) is a learning experience many people will heed after only one time. Sort of like mashing your face flat and knocking out all your teeth can help you learn to wear a helmet, since the facefulls of lit cigarette butts, Japanese beetles, mouthfuls of gnats, and rocks kicked up from the road didn't give you a hint.
I have worn a seatbelt since before it was popular, much less mandatory; yet the "Click it or Ticket" program infuriates me precisely because it mandates something for "my own good".
There is a law in Texas that will fine YOU if you leave your keys in the car and the car gets stolen (it's for your own good, you see).
If we are going to allow this why not expand the list?
No motorcycles, period.
No skydiving or bungee-jumping
No tobacco or alcohol, period
no small, economy cars (too dangerous with SUV's on the road).
no high-risk sexual activity of any kind
fell free to add to the list...
I can't tell you how many teachers I had in school who used to say this, then get enraged when I said "fine, and we are free to vote for people who won't step in".
LOL!
Don't worry about the Cincy Post, no one is reading it anyway :)
Just goes to show you that some of our greatest athletes are better off playing sports than using their heads in other areas. That's not to say all athletes are stupid. There are many very brilliant ones that end up even more successful after they retire than while they were playing. Not sure how bright Ben is though...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.